Typical IP ignorance
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| npan Apr 18, 2007 2:26 AM EDT |
To free software partisans that subscribe to RMS's philosophy on software, this article reeks of ignorance. I'm probably being trolled for responding like this. > What makes the GPL different is that it has built within it provisions that ensure people who develop custom code on GPL’d products contribute to the overall software effort. In effect, it has built-in payment terms, but in this case the payment is intellectual property, not cash. GPL is not about "contributing to the overall software effort"; the GPL is all about __ensuring the user has the right to **use, modify, share AND publish improvements** to the software that the user runs on their **own computer systems**__. There is no payment of IP; it is about ensuring the user's freedom. > The Free Software Foundation, the organization driving this license type, has as a primary goal the elimination of software intellectual property rights to promote broader collaboration and increase innovation. Wrong. The FSF's goal is to advocate the use of "free software" through education and supporting the development of various free software projects. > Enforcing the 3.0 version of the GPL will be a nightmare, largely due to its complexity, If you understand GPLv2, it's not difficult to understand GPLv3. Enforcing works covered under GPLv3 is just as difficult as enforcing any other copyrighted work. > I doubt we will know the full scope of the license change for some time after it is put into place. ... I doubt we will know the full scope of the license change for some time after it is put into place. If you read the licence, it tells you the scope. The majority of the terms of the licence applies to **redistribution** requirements and restrictions for a covered program. > You can’t hide from it [GPLv3] or dodge it [GPLv3], and eventually it will either be used to your benefit or used to your detriment. The key difference is knowledge. This is probably the most insightful thing in this article. > So What Is the Real Truth Behind GPL 3.0? It is a contract, one you probably can’t change, one that needs appropriate approval, and one you should treat with the same deference and concern as any other contract. The GNU General Public **License** is NOT A CONTRACT. The GPL is a licence agreement. Nobody has signed any contract. The owner of the code licenses the redistribution of the code to the user through the GPL. The only time that the licensing agreement takes place is when the user chooses to **redistribute any part of the covered work**. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!